Lawsuit: Pending ComplexKing, Kaiserin_, StonyBrook, and Pefum v. Crown, Case 9 (Mag. Ct., 2026)

[Nim]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

Civil Claim

Between:

ComplexKing, StonyBrook, and Pefum
Claimants

v.

The Crown of Alexandria
Defendant

---

PART 1: CLAIM FORM

1. Claimants

• ComplexKing, represented by Nimq_
• StonyBrook (Thritystone), represented by Nimq_
• Pefum, represented by Nimq_

2. Defendant
The Crown of Alexandria, represented by the Ministries of Justice, Internal Affairs, and Foreign Affairs.

3. Brief Details of Claim
The Ministry of Internal Affairs published the candidate eligibility requirement as 4 hours of playtime in the official May 2026 General Election thread — the voter threshold rather than the statutory candidate threshold. ComplexKing had 4 hours and 35 minutes of playtime and was declared as a candidate for the Alexandria National Party in reliance on that published requirement. The Ministry subsequently disqualified ComplexKing (and other claimants) under the statutory 6-hour standard, despite admitting in writing that it had "mistakenly stated 4 hours" and had "no legal way to remedy this" (Ticket #MIA-1553).

The parties have reached a settlement agreement and jointly seek the Court's approval to enter it as a consent order.

4. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over this civil matter pursuant to K.A. Const. § III Art. 16, which vests the Magistrates Court with jurisdiction over civil matters.

5. Remedies Sought

• A declaration that the Ministry of Internal Affairs' publication of incorrect candidate eligibility requirements, and its subsequent disqualification of candidates who relied on them, violated the Claimants' rights under K.A. Const. § V Art. 22
• A declaration that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' loss of the Claimants' passport applications, resulting in their disqualification, was a wrongful act of the Crown
• Compensatory damages of £5,000 to each Claimant (£15,000 total) for the deprivation of their right to stand for election
• Aggravated costs of £10,000 for the Crown's entering into and then unilaterally withdrawing from the Settlement Agreement
• Full and reasonable legal costs
• In the alternative, statutory damages under A.P. 04-027 §3
• An order directing the Ministry of Internal Affairs to implement procedures ensuring published election requirements match the statutory requirements before any future declaration period Such further relief as the Court deems just

---

PART 2: STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Election and Eligibility Requirements

1.1 The May 2026 Parliamentary General Election was called, with a Submission Period closing and voting period opening on or about May 2026.

1.2 Under the Alexandrian Electoral Act (A.P. 018), §17, candidates must satisfy eligibility requirements including minimum playtime (6 hours in the past 30 days), a login within the past 7 days, and a valid passport. These requirements are assessed "at the closing of the Submission Period" (§17(4)) "to the greatest extent possible."

2. The Published Requirement and Reliance

2.1 The official May 2026 General Election thread, posted by Capt11543 (Executive Staff), published the candidate eligibility requirement as "at least 4 hours of playtime in the past 30 days and have logged in within the past 7 days" — the voter threshold under §17(1), not the candidate threshold under §17(2).

2.2 ComplexKing had 4 hours and 35 minutes of playtime in the 30 days preceding the Submission Period close — above the published 4-hour standard.

2.3 The Alexandria National Party named ComplexKing as a candidate in reliance on the published requirement.

2.4 The Ministry of Internal Affairs has since admitted in writing (Ticket #MIA-1553) that it "mistakenly stated 4 hours were required in the declarations post" and confirmed it has "no legal way to remedy this," directing the claimant to petition the courts.

2.5 No correction, warning, or notice was issued at any point between the publication of the incorrect criteria and the disqualification. No opportunity was provided for ComplexKing or the ANP to address the deficiency.

3. The Disqualifications

3.1 On May 22, 2026, the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Post #4058) disqualified ComplexKing for "Lack of active playtime (6h/30d)" — applying the statutory 6-hour standard rather than the published 4-hour standard.

3.2 Kaiserin_ was likewise disqualified for insufficient playtime.

3.3 StonyBrook (Thritystone) submitted a passport application to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in advance of the election. The Ministry misplaced or lost the application, resulting in no passport being issued by the Submission Period close. Thritystone was disqualified for lack of a valid passport.

3.4 Pefum likewise submitted a passport application to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was also lost or misplaced by the Ministry. No passport was issued, and Pefum was disqualified for lack of a valid passport.

4. Injury to the Claimants

4.1 Each claimant suffered injury in that they were deprived of the opportunity to stand for election to Parliament — a right protected under K.A. Const. § V Art. 22 (right to run for and hold elected office), subject only to "reasonable limits prescribed by law."

4.2 The misrepresentation of the candidate eligibility requirement (4 hours published, 6 hours enforced) directly injured ComplexKing, who relied on the published standard in presenting his candidacy. The Ministry's own admission (Ticket #MIA-1553) confirms the error.

4.3 The passport-based disqualifications (StonyBrook, Pefum) constituted injury caused by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs losing or misplacing their passport applications, over which the claimants had no control. Having done what was required of them, they were disqualified through no fault of their own.

4.4 The playtime-based disqualifications (ComplexKing, Kaiserin_) constituted an injury in that the incorrect statement by the Ministry of Internal Affairs directly led to the disqualification of the candidates — they would have been able to attain the necessary 6 hours of playtime had the correct requirement been published from the outset.

5. The Settlement

5.1 On May 22, 2026, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement (attached as Exhibit A) to resolve all claims arising from these disqualifications.

5.2 The Settlement Agreement provides, inter alia, that any affected candidate who meets the eligibility requirements under §17 of the Alexandrian Electoral Act by the end of the voting period shall retain their position on their respective party list.

5.3 The Ministry of Justice has authority to enter this settlement pursuant to A.P. 01-044 §21(1).

5.4 The Crown, by its Solicitor General, has consented to this settlement and joins in the application for approval.

6. Prior Proceedings

6.1 This matter was previously filed as ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 8 (Mag. Ct., 2026) but was dismissed without prejudice on procedural grounds, as the filing did not adequately plead the underlying dispute.

6.2 On May 22, 2026, the parties also filed ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026) in the Chancery, which pleaded the full facts set out above. That case was dismissed without prejudice on the understanding that the parties would resolve the matter by settlement.

6.3 This refiling corrects the procedural deficiency of Case 8 by stating the full facts, injury, and legal basis for the claim and accompanying settlement.

---

PART 3: LEGAL BASIS

1. Jurisdiction

K.A. Const. § III Art. 16 vests the Magistrates Court with original jurisdiction over all civil matters not reserved exclusively for the Chancery.

2. Authority to Settle

A.P. 01-044 §21(1) authorizes the Ministry of Justice to settle civil claims on behalf of the Crown.

3. Inherent Authority to Approve Settlements

The Court has the inherent authority to approve settlements on joint application from the parties. K.A. Const. § VIII Art. 34 establishes that Alexandria is founded on adherence to constitutional and legal conventions that support the effective operation of government. The approval of mutually agreed settlements is a well-established convention of civil procedure.

4. The Right to Candidacy

K.A. Const. § V Art. 22 provides that "[e]very citizen has the right to run for and hold elected offices," subject only to "reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." The settlement gives effect to this right by allowing candidates who meet the statutory requirements by the end of voting to retain their ballot positions.

---

PART 4: RELIEF SOUGHT

1. A declaration that the Ministry of Internal Affairs' publication of incorrect candidate eligibility requirements, and its subsequent disqualification of candidates who relied on them, violated the Claimants' rights under K.A. Const. § V Art. 22;
2. A declaration that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' loss or misplacement of the Claimants' passport applications, resulting in the disqualification of StonyBrook and Pefum, was a wrongful act of the Crown;
3. An order that the Crown pay compensatory damages of £5,000 to each Claimant (£15,000 in total) for the deprivation of their constitutional right to stand for election;
4. An order that the Crown pay aggravated costs of £10,000 for entering into, filing for approval, and then unilaterally withdrawing from the Settlement Agreement after the delay had rendered the agreed remedy impossible;
5. An order that the Crown pay the Claimants' full and reasonable legal costs, without the £1,000 cap pleaded in the original Complaint;
6. In the alternative to or in addition to the award of compensatory damages, an order awarding statutory damages under the Accountability for Transparency Act (A.P. 04-027, §3) of up to £250 per day for the period during which the Ministry of Internal Affairs' published eligibility information was inaccurate;
7. An order directing the Ministry of Internal Affairs to implement procedures ensuring that all published election requirements accurately reflect the statutory requirements of the Alexandrian Electoral Act (A.P. 018) before the opening of any future declaration period;
8. Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

---

PART 5: STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true.

SIGNED.

Nimq_

This 25th day of May, 2026.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE MAGISTRATES COURT FOR REVIEW.

---

EVIDENCE

1. K.A. Const. § III Art. 16 — Magistrates Court civil jurisdiction
   (Constitution)
2. K.A. Const. § V Art. 22 — Right to run for office
   (id.)
3. Alexandrian Electoral Act (A.P. 018), §17 — Candidate eligibility requirements
   (Act of Parliament - A.P.018 | Alexandrian Electoral Act)
4. A.P. 01-044 §21(1) — MoJ authority to settle
   (id.)
5. May 2026 General Election thread (Post containing published 4-hour requirement)
   (https://www.mcstatecraft.com/threads/may-2026-parliamentary-general-election.1030/)
6. Ticket #MIA-1553 — MoIA admission of error
   [Attached]
7. ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026) — Full facts pleaded
   (Lawsuit: Dismissed - ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026))
8. Settlement Agreement — Exhibit A
   [File attached]

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS


The Crown's rightfully appointed counsel is commanded to appear before the Magistrates Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria in

Case 9 (Mag Ct., 2026)

ComplexKing, Kaiserin_, StonyBrook, and Pefum
Plaintiffs

v.

The Crown
Defendant

They are hereby required to do so within seventy-two (72) hours. Failure to do so may result in a default judgment.

So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO SUMMONS

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS


The Crown's rightfully appointed counsel is commanded to appear before the Magistrates Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria in

Case 9 (Mag Ct., 2026)

ComplexKing, Kaiserin_, StonyBrook, and Pefum
Plaintiffs

v.

The Crown
Defendant

They are hereby required to do so within seventy-two (72) hours. Failure to do so may result in a default judgment.

So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​

Checking in for the Crown, Your Honor.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Solicitor General

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


Your Honor, the parties have reached a settlement agreement in this matter. We believe that this agreement is in the mutual interest of all parties. We urge the Court to act swiftly in this matter. The vote period has been extended due to server downtime, and is now scheduled to end tomorrow morning.

The Crown herein submits a copy of the Settlement Agreement with references to the case number and the Plaintiffs' names updated.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Solicitor General

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR REMOVAL


Honorable Chancellors,

When this case was filed, it pertained to an election which was still in progress. The honorable Chancery has previously ordered the dismissal of ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026), a case arising from the same controversy. Although the case was not expressly dismissed for improper jurisdiction, the Plaintiff appeared to conclude that the prior case was not proper before the Chancery because the election has been ongoing. The Crown does not necessarily endorse that particular theory, but we currently observe that the election has since concluded.

K.A. Const. Art. 15 establishes the original jurisdiction of the Chancery to include certain electoral questions:

The Chancery is the highest court of the nation, with exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions, including the interpretation and application of the Constitution, as well as disputed returns arising from elections, including challenges to election results and qualifications of elected members of Parliament.

The Crown contends that this case now firmly fits the description of a "disputed return arising from elections", specifically a "challenge to election results". The results in being challenged are the set of members who were elected to Parliament; the question is whether they were elected fairly and lawfully.

Accordingly, the Crown hereby petitions the Chancery to remove this case to your honorable Court, as it now falls firmly within your jurisdiction.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Minister of Justice

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


Your Honor, the parties have reached a settlement agreement in this matter. We believe that this agreement is in the mutual interest of all parties. We urge the Court to act swiftly in this matter. The vote period has been extended due to server downtime, and is now scheduled to end tomorrow morning.

The Crown herein submits a copy of the Settlement Agreement with references to the case number and the Plaintiffs' names updated.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Solicitor General

Your Honor(s),

As the terms of the settlement agreement create obligations which affect an election which has already concluded, the agreement is no longer workable. The Crown therefore withdraws from this Agreement, and petitions the Court for additional time to negotiate a new one with the Plaintiffs.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Minister of Justice

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR REMOVAL


Honorable Chancellors,

When this case was filed, it pertained to an election which was still in progress. The honorable Chancery has previously ordered the dismissal of ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026), a case arising from the same controversy. Although the case was not expressly dismissed for improper jurisdiction, the Plaintiff appeared to conclude that the prior case was not proper before the Chancery because the election has been ongoing. The Crown does not necessarily endorse that particular theory, but we currently observe that the election has since concluded.

K.A. Const. Art. 15 establishes the original jurisdiction of the Chancery to include certain electoral questions:

The Crown contends that this case now firmly fits the description of a "disputed return arising from elections", specifically a "challenge to election results". The results in being challenged are the set of members who were elected to Parliament; the question is whether they were elected fairly and lawfully.

Accordingly, the Crown hereby petitions the Chancery to remove this case to your honorable Court, as it now falls firmly within your jurisdiction.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Minister of Justice

@AsexualDinosaur @Smallfries Apologies Your Honors, it seems I forgot to tag you in this post.

 

[Smallfries]

@AsexualDinosaur @Smallfries Apologies Your Honors, it seems I forgot to tag you in this post.

Noted. The Chancery will deliberate.

 

[Smallfries]

@Nim do the Claimants wish to respond to the Government's petition?

 

[Nim]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

RESPONSE TO ENTREATY FOR REMOVAL

Honorable Chancellor Smallfries,

The Claimants respectfully submit this response to the Crown's Entreaty for Removal. The Claimants oppose removal to the Chancery on the following grounds.

---

A. THE CLAIM IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A DISPUTED RETURN

The Crown argues that because the election has concluded, this case now constitutes a "disputed return arising from elections" within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Chancery under K.A. Const. § III Art. 15.

This is a mischaracterization.

The Claimants do not challenge the election results. They do not ask this Court to unseat any elected member of Parliament. They do not dispute who won or who is qualified to sit. This is not a case where Candidate A argues that Candidate B was improperly declared elected.

This is a civil claim for the government's own admitted administrative errors:

• The Ministry of Internal Affairs published the wrong candidate eligibility requirement (4 hours instead of 6), admitted the mistake in Ticket #MIA-1553, and then disqualified candidates who relied on the published requirement.
• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs lost or misplaced passport applications, then candidates were disqualified for lacking the very documents the government failed to process.

The remedy sought is not to overturn an election result. The remedy sought is redress for government misconduct that deprived citizens of their constitutional right to run for office. This is a civil wrong, not an electoral dispute.

The "disputed returns" clause in K.A. Const. § III Art. 15 was plainly designed for cases involving challenges to who was elected and whether elected members are properly qualified to sit. It has never, and should not, be stretched to encompass a claim for government negligence in running an election.

B. THE CROWN'S OWN CONDUCT CONFIRMS THIS IS A CIVIL CLAIM

The Crown entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Claimants to resolve this matter. It filed that settlement with the Magistrates Court for approval. A settlement is the hallmark of a civil claim, not a constitutional dispute over election returns.

The Crown only withdrew from the settlement and sought removal to Chancery after the election concluded. It cannot simultaneously treat this as a settlement-worthy civil matter (amenable to consent orders in Magistrates Court) and a "disputed return" (requiring exclusive Chancery jurisdiction). The Crown's position is contradictory and opportunistic.

C. THE MAGISTRATES COURT IS THE PROPER VENUE

K.A. Const. § III Art. 16 vests the Magistrates Court with original jurisdiction over all civil matters not reserved exclusively for the Chancery. The Claimants' case, arising from government error, relying on an admitted mistake, and seeking civil remedies, falls squarely within the Magistrates Court's jurisdiction. No provision of the Constitution or any Act removes this category of claim to the Chancery.

D. REMOVAL WOULD CAUSE ADDITIONAL DELAY WITHOUT BENEFIT

The facts are largely undisputed. The Ministry has admitted the error. The Claimants have pleaded the full facts. This Court is well-equipped to determine the appropriate remedy. Removal to Chancery would duplicate proceedings and delay resolution without any corresponding benefit to the administration of justice.

E. THE CLAIMANTS' POSITION ON REMAINING MATTERS

The Crown has withdrawn from the Settlement Agreement. The election has concluded. The Claimants acknowledge that reinstatement to the ballot is no longer practicable. However, the following matters remain live and properly before this Court:

1. Costs — The Claimants seek costs for the Crown's conduct in entering and then unilaterally withdrawing from a settlement agreement, as originally pleaded.
2. Declaratory relief — A declaration that the Ministry of Internal Affairs' publication of incorrect candidate eligibility requirements, and its subsequent disqualification of candidates who relied on those published requirements, violated the Claimants' rights under K.A. Const. § V Art. 22.
3. Prospective relief — An order requiring the Ministry of Internal Affairs to implement procedures ensuring that all published election requirements accurately reflect the statutory requirements before the opening of any future declaration period.

---

The Claimants therefore respectfully submit that the Entreaty for Removal should be dismissed and that this matter should proceed before the Magistrates Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
Counsel for the Claimants

 

[Nim]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

---

DECLARATION OF AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
(WITHDRAWAL OF KAISERIN_ AND RESTRUCTURING OF PARTIES)

Pursuant to General Court Rules and Procedures §II(3), the Claimants hereby declare an amendment to the Complaint filed May 25, 2026, and explain as follows:

Nature of amendment:

1. Withdrawal of Kaiserin_ as a party.
2. Restructuring of remaining parties: StonyBrook (Thritystone) and Pefum elevated from intervening parties to full Claimants.

Reason for withdrawal: At the direction of Kaiserin_.

Reason for restructuring: StonyBrook and Pefum were named as parties from the outset of this case. The "intervening party" designation was a drafting inaccuracy; they are properly Claimants alongside ComplexKing.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
Counsel for the Claimants

 

[Nim]

Some bs. "will deliberate". more like "will violate your constitutional right to a speedy trial"

 

[Nim]

I petition for the removal of the judicial officer, for "no response within 7 days".

 

[Smallfries]

Some bs. "will deliberate". more like "will violate your constitutional right to a speedy trial"

I petition for the removal of the judicial officer, for "no response within 7 days".

This outburst is highly unbecoming, unprofessional, undignified, and ultimately unproductive. I am not sure what you thought you would achieve by it, but the ultimate answer is nothing. This is not my court so I will not make orders or strike either comment, I leave this to the presiding officer here. I would not be surprised if both comments were struck, for the latter to be ignored for want of proper formatting, and for contempt charge(s) to be levied.

Have some decency. You are embarrassing yourself and your clients.

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR REMOVAL


Honorable Chancellors,

When this case was filed, it pertained to an election which was still in progress. The honorable Chancery has previously ordered the dismissal of ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026), a case arising from the same controversy. Although the case was not expressly dismissed for improper jurisdiction, the Plaintiff appeared to conclude that the prior case was not proper before the Chancery because the election has been ongoing. The Crown does not necessarily endorse that particular theory, but we currently observe that the election has since concluded.

K.A. Const. Art. 15 establishes the original jurisdiction of the Chancery to include certain electoral questions:

The Crown contends that this case now firmly fits the description of a "disputed return arising from elections", specifically a "challenge to election results". The results in being challenged are the set of members who were elected to Parliament; the question is whether they were elected fairly and lawfully.

Accordingly, the Crown hereby petitions the Chancery to remove this case to your honorable Court, as it now falls firmly within your jurisdiction.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Minister of Justice

[order]
CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY - REMOVAL

Crown-Respondent pleads for Writ of Removal to the Chancery in this case. Crown entreats for this order due to the fact that the original underlying case was dismissed due to not being a disputed return. Here, the election has already happened. Therefore, this case now represents a disputed return, and is proper before the Chancery.

Ignoring considerations of "ping-ponging" cases based on temporal relationship to a pending or past election, our main issue here is with the definition of "disputed returns" and "elected members" themselves. Both of these terms are contained within the Constitution, and are in the same clause discussing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chancery. K.A. Const. Part III § 15 (Frieslaw). Neither are fully defined.

In the originating case, we dismissed and directed this case to this Court based on the past-tense understanding of "elected members." See ComplexKing v. Crown of Alexandria, Case 2 (Ch. 2026). We asked Claimant (the same main party as here) for clarification, due to our apprehension. At the time, the election complained of had not occurred, and so no "elected member" was in controversy. Seemingly agreeing, Claimant did not argue and said "Thank you for your time." We dismissed.

Here, complaint was filed before the election. The election has since occurred. In the original complaint, Claimant asks for a remedy including the Ministry of Internal Affairs ("MIA") to "reinstate candidates who meet eligibility requirements by the close of voting."

At the close of elections, the Crown entreated for removal on the basis that the case is "firmly [within] the description of a 'disputed return arising from [an election].'" As the results are being challenged, the argument goes, the case is firmly within the Chancery's jurisdiction once again.

Claimant contests on the grounds that the matter is not a disputed return, however, but instead a civil issue with the manner in which the Crown conducted itself. For the sake of everyone's time, the Chancery agrees with Claimant.

Claimant makes the issue easy for us: "The claimants do not challenge the election results. They do not ask this Court to unseat any elected member of Parliament. They do not dispute who won or who is qualified to sit. This is not a case where Candidate A argues that Candidate B was improperly declared."

On examination, this is correct. Though indeed the original complaint asks in section two of part four for the reinstatement of a candidate, this does not automatically transfer into a retroactive relief sought for that candidate to be declared legitimate and elections re-run. Even if it was, this court does not have that power. Given that Claimant has not themselves sought to dismiss this case and return for the Chancery, it is clear that is not what they intend. But again, even if they had, this court is entirely incapable of granting that relief, or any relief which even incidentally will foreseeably result in the removal of someone from office due to a disputed return or election.

As a result, we do not find reason to remove this case to our custody. The action is untolled, and the instant court may proceed.
[/order]

 

[Nim]

DECLARATION OF AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
(AMENDMENT OF PRAYER FOR RELIEF)

Honorable Magistrate Gribble19,

Pursuant to General Court Rules and Procedures §II(3), the Claimants hereby declare an amendment to the Prayer for Relief in the Complaint filed May 25, 2026. The Claimants explain the amendment and its basis as follows.

This amendment is occasioned by a change in circumstance that is entirely the Crown's own doing. The Complaint as originally pleaded sought relief framed around an agreed settlement and an election still in progress. The Crown has since (i) withdrawn from the Settlement Agreement it had itself filed with this Court for approval (Post #6), and (ii) allowed the voting period to close. The settlement-era remedies are therefore moot, and the Claimants amend their Prayer to seek the relief now appropriate to the Crown's conduct as it actually unfolded.

---

A. NATURE OF THE AMENDMENT

1. Withdrawn as moot. The Claimants withdraw their request for an order reinstating candidates to the ballot (former Relief Sought §2). The voting period has closed and reinstatement is no longer practicable.
2. Amended and expanded. The Claimants amend the remaining Prayer for Relief to seek (i) compensatory damages for each Claimant, (ii) aggravated costs reflecting the Crown's conduct in this litigation, (iii) full and uncapped legal costs, and (iv) declaratory and prospective relief, as set out in Part D below.

This amendment adds to and does not retract any fact or claim already submitted, consistent with General Court Rules §II(5).

---

B. THE GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATION JUSTIFIES SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF

The Crown's conduct in this matter was not a trivial clerical slip. It was a serious and compounding deprivation of a constitutional right, admitted in writing, affecting multiple citizens, across multiple ministries, with no remedy offered at any stage.

1. A constitutional right was denied. K.A. Const. § V Art. 22 guarantees that "[e]very citizen has the right to run for and hold elected offices," subject only to "reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." Each Claimant was deprived of that right.
2. The deprivation was the Crown's admitted fault. The Ministry of Internal Affairs published the wrong candidate eligibility threshold (4 hours rather than the statutory 6), admitted in writing that it had "mistakenly stated 4 hours" and had "no legal way to remedy this" (Ticket #MIA-1553), then disqualified the very candidates who relied on its published figure. ComplexKing, who exceeded the published 4-hour standard, was disqualified under a standard the Crown never published in time for him to meet it.
3. Two ministries failed the Claimants. Separately, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lost or misplaced the passport applications of StonyBrook and Pefum, then those Claimants were disqualified for lacking the very documents the government had failed to process. The injury was caused entirely by the Crown; the Claimants did everything required of them.
4. No correction, warning, or opportunity to cure was ever given between the publication of the incorrect criteria and the disqualifications.
5. The Crown then compounded the injury through its conduct of this case. The Crown negotiated a Settlement Agreement, represented to this Court that the agreement was "in the mutual interest of all parties," filed it for approval, and urged the Court "to act swiftly" (Post #4). It then unilaterally withdrew from that very agreement (Post #6) and sought removal to the Chancery (Post #5), only after the delay had run the election clock out and rendered the agreed remedy impossible. The Chancery has since rejected that removal bid (Post #15). The Crown's settle-then-withdraw maneuver deprived the Claimants of the bargained-for remedy and forced continued litigation.

A violation of this seriousness warrants relief commensurate with the harm, not the nominal sum to which the Claimants had been willing to agree in settlement.

---

C. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT

1. Compensatory damages. The deprivation of the constitutional right to stand for office (K.A. Const. § V Art. 22) is a cognizable injury for which compensation may be awarded. The General Court Rules confirm that damages may be sought for civil wrongs (§I(10)). Each Claimant suffered a distinct loss of the opportunity to seek elected office through no fault of their own.
2. Aggravated costs for litigation misconduct. This Court possesses inherent authority over the conduct of parties before it and over the award of costs. The Crown's conduct, entering a settlement, filing it for the Court's approval, and then unilaterally withdrawing from it after the delay had extinguished the agreed remedy, is precisely the kind of conduct that warrants an enhanced costs award. The Claimants do not plead punitive damages; they seek aggravated costs grounded in the Crown's own litigation conduct.
3. Uncapped legal costs. The Complaint's original £1,000 cost cap was a concession offered in the context of a global settlement. The Crown forfeited the benefit of that concession when it withdrew from the settlement. The Claimants accordingly seek their full and reasonable legal costs, uncapped.
4. Statutory damages (pleaded in the alternative). To the extent the Court finds the Ministry of Internal Affairs breached a duty to publish accurate election information, the Accountability for Transparency Act (A.P. 04-027, §3) provides for damages of up to £250 per day of non-compliance. The Claimants plead this in the alternative.
5. Declaratory and prospective relief. This Court may declare the Crown's conduct unlawful and order corrective procedures to prevent recurrence, consistent with its civil jurisdiction under K.A. Const. § III Art. 16.

---

D. AMENDED PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Claimants respectfully pray that this Honourable Court:

1. Declare that the Ministry of Internal Affairs' publication of incorrect candidate eligibility requirements, and its subsequent disqualification of candidates who relied on those published requirements, violated the Claimants' rights under K.A. Const. § V Art. 22;
2. Declare that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' loss or misplacement of the Claimants' passport applications, resulting in their disqualification, was a wrongful act of the Crown causing injury to StonyBrook and Pefum;
3. Award compensatory damages in the amount of £5,000 to each Claimant (£15,000 in total) for the deprivation of their constitutional right to stand for election;
4. Award aggravated costs in the amount of £10,000 against the Crown for entering into, filing for approval, and then unilaterally withdrawing from the Settlement Agreement after the delay had rendered the agreed remedy impossible;
5. Award the Claimants their full and reasonable legal costs, without the £1,000 cap pleaded in the original Complaint;
6. In the alternative to or in addition to paragraph 3, award statutory damages under the Accountability for Transparency Act (A.P. 04-027, §3) of up to £250 per day for the period during which the Ministry of Internal Affairs' published eligibility information was inaccurate;
7. Order the Ministry of Internal Affairs to implement procedures ensuring that all published election requirements accurately reflect the statutory requirements of the Alexandrian Electoral Act (A.P. 018) before the opening of any future declaration period;
8. Grant such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

---

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this amendment are true.

Respectfully submitted,

Nim Nom
Counsel for the Claimants

This 21st day of June, 2026.

 

[Nim]

ENTREATY FOR STRIKING

Your honour, I apologize for my outburst, I request that the court strike Post #12 and #13.

 

[Nim]

ENTREATY OF PROMPTING

Honorable Magistrate Gribble19,

Counsel for the Claimants respectfully submits this Entreaty of Prompting under General Court Rules and Procedures §V(8), and requests that the Court resume and progress this matter.

1. The Chancery has resolved the only pending threshold question. In its Order of Post #15, the Chancery denied the Crown's Entreaty for Removal, holding that this is a civil matter properly before the Magistrates Court and that "the instant court may proceed."

2. The case is therefore ripe to move forward. The Crown checked in for these proceedings (Post #3) but has not, to date, filed an Answer to the Complaint affirming or denying the facts pleaded or stating any defence under fact or law, as required by General Court Rules §II(2).

3. The Claimants have filed a Declaration of Amendment to Complaint amending the Prayer for Relief, and have updated the Complaint accordingly.

The Claimants accordingly request that the Court:

(a) Formally resume the proceedings following the Chancery's Order;

(b) Open the Discovery period and set a date for its close pursuant to General Court Rules §III; and

(c) Set a deadline by which the Crown must file its Answer to the Complaint, as amended, pursuant to General Court Rules §II(2).

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
Counsel for the Claimants